Thread: Unconstitutional Action and Gun Laws

Thank, for your answers.Its always been awkward understanding this issue when you come from a country that has not had a civil war and even in ww2 the japs only bombed Darwin spasmodically and our only revolution, at the goldfeilds at Ballarat lasted for 20 minutes.Been pretty damn quite down here apart from those last two episodes in our history.

Well, the construction of that sentence is open for interpretation if you had put the semicolon where it was placed in the original text.

But regardless, I think that all laws and regulations should pass the 'common sense' test. I can respect the idea that people should be able to defend themselves. However, the idea that violent criminals should have that right is going too far imo.

Likewise, the constitution failed to properly define 'arms' because it was not necessary at the time. However, the term 'arms' can include nuclear weapons, high explosives, cruise missiles... etc. And the US and the world in generl would be a much more dangerous place if people were allowed to have those.

So while I understand the argument for unlimited gun ownership, there have to be some reasonable limitations if you don't want society to implode.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Well, the construction of that sentence is open for interpretation if you had put the semicolon where it was placed in the original text.

But regardless, I think that all laws and regulations should pass the 'common sense' test. I can respect the idea that people should be able to defend themselves. However, the idea that violent criminals should have that right is going too far imo.

Likewise, the constitution failed to properly define 'arms' because it was not necessary at the time. However, the term 'arms' can include nuclear weapons, high explosives, cruise missiles... etc. And the US and the world in generl would be a much more dangerous place if people were allowed to have those.

So while I understand the argument for unlimited gun ownership, there have to be some reasonable limitations if you don't want society to implode.

Violent Criminals do not have this right. To say or even imply they do is simply not true. Maybe I misunderstood your post.

I've got quite a few friends online from other countries and nearly all of them seem to think that just anyone can get a gun in the US. This is also simply not true.

There is quite a bit of common sense over here...just not enough politicians with any to speak of. And i'll tell ya right now I didn't vote for the guy in charge of my state.





Vote for me if joo want to live.

...

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

I couldn't agree more. I would even go so far as letting felons(especially the non violent) legally own guns. If felons lose their right to bear arms, once the debt to society has been paid, the right is no longer a right but a privilege. If his rights/privilege can be taken away, then so can mine. His right to vote should be restored as well. A hard pill to swallow but the logic cant be beaten. If the felon is violent or convicted of some kind of voter/election fraud then they should be incarcerated for life in order to protect the right of the citizens.

NO ONE has the right to vote.

Originally Posted by JokiJo

NO ONE has the right to vote.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Originally Posted by AussiePostie

Hi, I am from out of town but have a keen interest in peoples rights.
Now feel free to correct me on anything I say, as I said I am from out of town, an outsider looking in so to speak.
When the above was written I gather arms were meant to mean a shovel, pitchfork, knife and a black powder rifle. So today that would translate to a shovel, pitchfork, knife and maybe a single shot bolt action rifle.
So my interpretation of the above is that every citizen has the right to keep a knife and a basic rifle for personal use, and to be ready when called upon by the state for home security, and when said citizens are organised into a well regulated militia.
So if the average citizen likes to do a bit of hunting or would like to help the state in a time of need, does anyone really need anything more than a knife and a single shot rifle and some ammunition in thier gun cupboard? From a personal point of view I don,t really see the need for hand guns or semi automatic weapons to be in the hands of the general public.
Like I said that,s just my two bobs worth and feel free to tell me your thoughts as I am allways interested when a government is trying to curtail a citizens rights.

Indeed. And a long with that, the 1st amendment should be limited to the spoken word and 18th century printing presses.

No, in order to hold our own militia we need nationally competent weapons. In my opinion, we should be able to own the same infantry kit as a solider. A militia isn't just an ideal we should hold to our hearts for great great grandpas sake. It should be a real line of defense against threats foreign and DOMESTIC. Whether that be fellow countryman, government, or drug addicts.

Back then, a black powder rifle is the equivalent of a shoulder fired rocket or large caliber mounted machine gun, much the same as the internet is a 21st century version or a printing press.


Don't for a moment think our founders weren't as smart as modern man. They have forseen problems that have come to pass hundreds of years after their deaths. We dismiss their wisdom so easily.

Originally Posted by Vekta

What exactly do you mean by that?

Find me where it says Americans have the right to vote

Originally Posted by JokiJo

Indeed. No, in order to hold our own militia we need nationally competent weapons. In my opinion, we should be able to own the same infantry kit as a solider. A militia isn't just an ideal we should hold to our hearts for great great grandpas sake. It should be a real line of defense against threats foreign and DOMESTIC. Whether that be fellow countryman, government, or drug addicts.

The U.S.A must be the only western country in the world that legally allows people to own military grade weapons and is it legal to have militia training camps.Considering you have the most modern and powerfull military force in the world protecting you, does the average citizen really need such powerfull weapons for personal defence and if the answer is yes, is that not saying something about the state of society and the nation in general? Why not just join the reserves and be trained professionally to use the latest weapons and tactics in the defence of your country. My son is in the reserves here in OZ.He has his complete kit at home including a fully packed quick deployment case.The only thing he doesn,t have is his rifle.This is kept at the barrack,s and in this day and age I do not think anyone is going to invade the country that quick that he would not have time to aquire it.

The reason is, and this comes as a shock to many (former) Europeans, that in the US, there is a higher degree of aim for self-sufficiency, and often a general critical view on governing institutions.

In my limited comprehension this conflicts heavily with the also clearly visible, near-celebrity/divine adoration for political candidates and their slick marketing. I need to wrap my head around that, but let's put it aside.

The criticism plus desire for self-sufficiency makes that people will likely be better prepared when the proverbial excrements hit the proverbial air circulation unit. Government is well equipped to take care of one entity best, themselves. In my view, the general consensus in Europe is more of a government that one follows and does almost everything for you.

Originally Posted by JokiJo

Indeed. And a long with that, the 1st amendment should be limited to the spoken word and 18th century printing presses.

No, in order to hold our own militia we need nationally competent weapons. In my opinion, we should be able to own the same infantry kit as a solider. A militia isn't just an ideal we should hold to our hearts for great great grandpas sake. It should be a real line of defense against threats foreign and DOMESTIC. Whether that be fellow countryman, government, or drug addicts.

Back then, a black powder rifle is the equivalent of a shoulder fired rocket or large caliber mounted machine gun, much the same as the internet is a 21st century version or a printing press.


Don't for a moment think our founders weren't as smart as modern man. They have forseen problems that have come to pass hundreds of years after their deaths. We dismiss their wisdom so easily.

Sure. Let's give everybody military grade weapons. I'm sure Timothy McVeigh would've loved loading up his van with C4 at walmart. Would you draw the line somewhere? Nukes? Biological weapons?